Between science and fiction: neuroleptic drug advertisements, stigma and schizophrenia
| Pages | 33-41 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/17465729200400011 |
| Date | 01 June 2004 |
| Published date | 01 June 2004 |
| Author | Philip Thomas,Claire Phipps‐Jones,Stella Flanagan |
| Subject Matter | Health & social care |
journal of mental health promotion •volume 3•issue 2 •june 2004 © Pavilion Publishing (Brighton) Ltd
Between science and fiction: neuroleptic drug
advertisements, stigma and schizophrenia
ABSTRACT
It has been suggested that the medical profession contributes to the stigmatisation of those who experience mental health problems,
through ‘iatrogenic’ stigma. This study explores how pharmaceutical companies and their advertising agencies think psychiatrists view
people who suffer from mental health problems, as expressed through the design and content of advertisements for neuroleptic medication
intended for the psychiatric profession. All pharmaceutical company advertisements appearing in the British Journal of Psychiatry in 1999
were analysed: quantitatively as to drug type, advertisement format and demographic characteristics of subjects portrayed in advertisements,
and qualitatively as to content, accompanying text and the theme of the advertisement. Although adverts for neuroleptic drugs constitute a
minority of all adverts appearing in the journal in 1999, they are larger than antidepressant adverts, use more pages, and are more likely to
portray people suffering from schizophrenia as inactive, socially isolated, and leading empty, meaningless lives. Some of the images resonate
with the popular mythology of schizophrenia as ‘other’ and ‘split personality’. From this we conclude that pharmaceutical company
advertisements for neuroleptic drugs do indeed present stigmatising images of people suffering from schizophrenia. Editors of medical
journals should scrutinise advertisements for potentially stigmatising content. It is time for a debate about the position of glossy
advertisements in the pages of medical journals.
Declaration of interest: Philip Thomas is co-chair of the Critical Psychiatry Network and has written extensive critiques of the biomedical model.
Philip Thomas
Consultant psychiatrist
Bradford Assertive Outreach Team/
Senior research fellow
Centre for Citizenship and Community
Mental Health, University of Bradford
Claire Phipps-Jones
PRHO, York District Hospital
Stella Flanagan
Independent mental health activist
Hebden Bridge
Research
Stigma has a devastating impact on the lives of those
who experience mental health problems, but the word
is open to different interpretations (Gray, 2002). In
medicine, stigma tends to be seen as a property of an
individual. More recently, Sayce (2000) has argued that
stigma is best thought of in terms of a social model of
disability. Her writing on citizenship opens up a
political analysis in which we may understand stigma in
terms of the way our shared professional, social and
cultural practices articulate and create otherness. These
practices shape the stigmatised person’s experience,
defining them as different and as ‘other’. This view
entails a volte-face for mental health professionals. It
diverts our attention away from the stigmatised person
and encourages us to reflect on our shared beliefs and
practices that create the possibility of stigma. Sartorius
(2002) would appear to agree. He uses the expression
‘iatrogenic stigma’ to describe how psychiatric practices
such as the use of diagnosis or neuroleptic medication
that has visibly distressing side effects stigmatise.
Sartorius and Gray argue that the medical
profession must examine its own attitudes towards
people with mental health problems and take action to
change behaviour and practice to reduce stigma. This is
important. We may be psychiatrists but we are at the
same time members of society and share with lay
33
To continue reading
Request your trial